Examples 5.3

# Examples 5.3 - Notes 5.3 Generally the Venn Diagram method...

This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

Generally, the Venn Diagram method is OK for assessing validity. But, to sort of supplement that method for examining validity we can add the following rules. First, we should remind ourselves of distribution of terms. Remember the following: Statement type Term(s) distributed A subject E subject, predicate I nothing O predicate Rule 1: The middle term must be distributed at least once. Fallacy: undistributed middle Example: All sharks are fish. All salmon are fish. All salmon are sharks. (you need not know the following per se; it only explains the reason for the rule) The point is the following: (assuming M denotes the middle term, S the minor term, and P the major term) if M is distributed in the first premise, then P will be related to ALL of the M class. At that point, if M is related to S, then there will be some common ground from which to draw. Similarly, if M is ever distributed in the second premise, then S will be related to the whole class of M. Then, if M is related to P at all, we’ll know something about the relation between all three. If M is undistributed throughout, then all we know is that S is somehow related to M, and P is somehow related to M, not that S is in any way related to P, which will kind of be VITAL for the conclusion. Rule 2: If a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in a premise. Fallacies:

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

### Page1 / 5

Examples 5.3 - Notes 5.3 Generally the Venn Diagram method...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document
Ask a homework question - tutors are online